State of Haryana Through Secy. to Govt. Transport Dept. Chandigarh and ors.

Appellant Advocate

D.D. Chawla, Adv

Respondent Advocate

M.C. Chagla and ; S.S. Chadha, Advs.

Excerpt:.....through 2 routes and so forth passing through 2 different states under section 48 (3) (xiv) of the motor vehicles act, 1939 - and, whether such appeal could be considered under article 133(1)(c) of the constitution of india due to private or public concern associated with the matter
- section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started..........in these proceedings, broadly speaking, relates to the construction of section 48 (3) (xiv) of the motor vehicles act and it arises in this way. public service buses running from the union territory of delhi to the union territory of chandigarh have to pass through karnal (in haryana). through tickets are issued to the passengers traveling by such vehicles from delhi right up to chandigarh. the inter-state transport commission gave its advice on 27-8-1966 under section 63-a (2) (b) of the motor vehicles act in the following terms:'it would nto be in order if one vehicle operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers traveling on both the routes on direct tickets for places on both the routes, operations which would contravene this advice should be stopped and the.....

Judgment:ORDER

1. This is an application by the Delhi Administration purporting to be under Article 133(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, but praying in the end that the case being of public importance, be certified to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(c). The judgment sought to be appealed from was delivered by a bench of this Court on 20-10-1967 allowing C. W. 1376 of 1967 presented by the State of Haryana and quashing the order of the Inter-State transport Commission and of the Inter-State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

2. The short question raised in these proceedings, broadly speaking, relates to the construction of section 48 (3) (xiv) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it arises in this way. Public service buses running from the Union Territory of Delhi to the Union territory of Chandigarh have to pass through Karnal (in Haryana). Through tickets are issued to the passengers traveling by such vehicles from Delhi right up to Chandigarh. The Inter-State Transport Commission gave its advice on 27-8-1966 under section 63-A (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the following terms:

'It would nto be in order if one vehicle operating on two permits for two routes were to book direct passengers traveling on both the routes on direct tickets for places on both the routes, Operations which would contravene this advice should be stopped and the services be so regulated to ensure that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are nto violated,'

3. The Division Bench has in the order sought to be appealed from, held that issuing of through tickets cannto be prohibited under the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. The Administration of Delhi has submitted through Shri D. D. Chawla that the impugned order materially affects their financial interest and since similar disputes are likely to arise between other States as well it is eminently a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court,

5. Shri M. C. Chagla, the learned counsel for the respondent has, in opposing this petition, submitted that it had been conceded by the Delhi Administration before the Bench that there could be two permits in respect of the same bus, one from Delhi to Karnal and the other from Karnal to Chandigarh and it is only a rational consequence flowing from this concession to hold that through tickets are permissible to be issued to the passengers traveling by the said bus. Two independent routes can, according to the counsel, be thus linked up for the purpose of issuing through tickets to the passengers,

6. We do nto think it is for us to determine whether the impugned Bench decision of this Court is correct. This would have to be determined by the Supreme Court on appeal. We are at this stage only concerned with the problem whether the question raised is of sufficient public or private importance so as to justify a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. Keeping in view the conflicting and divergent approaches of the neighbouring States and the Union territory, we consider that the question raised is of sufficient public importance requiring the Supreme Court to settle the legal principle applicable to the construction of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. We accordingly direct that the necessary certificate be issued. There will be no order as to costs of these proceedings.